Fascinating intersection of ideas here. On the one hand, a desire for the upcoming show to remain "true to Tolkien" whatever that happens to mean. And, on the other hand, a wish for public domain thus allowing people to do whatever they want with the concepts from Lord of the Rings, irrespective of the original author. Fascinating.
I don't know what the legal situation is in circumstances where a work of fiction falls into the public domain in some countries before it does in others. It would look terribly cynical to exploit such a loophole for this famous work. However, the average audience member would probably not care. I found the following video about Tolkien wrestling with the metaphysical problem of Orcs interesting: He never quite nailed the problem nor did his son choose to attempt to fix it.
As someone who would really want this new series to be fully respectful of Tolkien, who never wanted his works to be adapted to film at all, you make an interesting argument. Current copyright laws do not respect the original intention of the concept as they are now in place to continue to make money for copyright holders long after the original creator has passed away. In theory, for any property, I firmly believe that rights should end after a generation has passed since the creator died. As someone who would love to see works true to the spirit AND words of Tolkien produced, I hope that there are not too many liberties taken with this production.
It's not looking hopeful at the moment I'm afraid. Even if the plot, writing and acting turn out to be decent, it will be hard for me to watch if it deviates significantly from what Tolkien actually wrote or would have approved given the Catholicism that permeated his Middle-earth legendarium. For me, it pivots on the exact nature of the invented Halbrand character. That Galdriel might start her penitence late in the Second Age I could live with. The same goes for the time compression, warrior Galadriel, Galadriel physically travelling to Númenor (perhaps they could have used palantíri instead), and the Harfoots (definitely a variety of Hobbit). If the rumours about Halbrand are true though, it's a travesty.
50-second clip from the show: Without context, it's hard to say much about this clip one way or the other. This Galadriel appears to be channelling an amateur sleuth such as Veronica Mars perhaps. I think I prefer that idea to warrior Galadriel.
There are unlicensed James Bond story collections and novels that have been published in Canada because Fleming's James Bond novels are public domain there. You can get them outside of Canada, but you have to buy them from a Canadian vendor.
I actually read and loved Lord of the Rings earlier this year and afterward took a deep dive into The Silmarillion, before moving in to read sizeable amounts of the letters Tolkien wrote. Through all of that I came to realise what a meticulous worker Tolkien was and really came to admire this man who held thousands of years of fictional history and made up languages in his mind palace. For all of the above, I won’t be touching this show. It’s The Lord of the Rings in name only and nothing to do with Tolkien himself. If it get’s really good reviews all round I might be tempted to have a look, but honestly I’m very happy with the version of Middle Earth that exists in my head through the books. Some things are better left in books.
I'll give it its day in court. It looks quite visually stunning. If it turns into an un-Tolkienite dumpster fire, there's plenty of other things out there to watch. I won't get too wound up about it either way.
Here's a genuine question for me, and something I legitimately struggle with as I get older: if the vision doesn't hold up to imaginings of the books what does it take away from the books? I don't say this to be argumentative, though I have no doubt it will come across as such. No doubt this attitude will sound flippant or rude. But, I have had this small revelation since the Star Wars prequels and the vitriolic excess that was directed at them and Lucas himself that he had "ruined the OT." Not saying this is the attitude presented here, more that I am targeting a much larger attitude that an adaptation takes away from the original work, be it comic, book, or film. My biggest grappling question is How? I don't agree with the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings films by and large but I would not say they diminish the books in anyway. This isn't meant to put you on the spot, so please don't feel like you have to answer. But, I still read Lord of the Rings, I read Tolkien's letters and am working through the Similarion. And, my wife and I regularly watch through our edited style of the films. The two coexist rather nicely.
It’s a great question, though my answer may be a little dull. I agree nothing at all is taken from the original works. The thing that’s taken is more profound and is taken from me personally, that being time. I work full time and when I’m not working, usually I’m still working unpaid to get some project or another off the blocks. On top of that I like to read two books a month, I’m an avid miniature painter and finally a devoted husband and owner of two cats. All of that means I pick and choose my entertainment and honestly, there’s an embarrassment of riches these days in terms of good shows that are out there. And coming out all the time. I had no idea Netflix’s adaptation of The Sandman was starting tomorrow, I still haven’t watched Severance, there’s Andor and She-Hulk coming and a growing list of movies and documentaries. I suspect the LotR series will get the same shrift the Halo show did from me. I’ll resist, finally watch a few and then dump it. I expect the same for House of the Dragon which I’m similarly disinterested in. So yeah, basically unless something can justify a slice of my time, I’ll skip it. It’s not about desecrating the original text or whatever. Just modern realities. I’d honestly rather spend the time reading the books again, which I’ve actually been thinking about doing just in terms of studying the prose a little closer on a second pass. LotR is a beautiful book. Nothing will ever change that.
I started watching a couple of episodes of HALO and didn't continue as well. I really wanted to like it, and maybe I'll pick it up again, but it just didn't hold my interest too much.
Nothing dull about that. I too am extremely selective, though for different reasons. The main reason is that fiction doesn't engage me like it use to. I use to find more enjoyment in video games, and books upon books, and such. Now, such things are a rare treat because real life demands much. I agree, there is an embarrassment of riches. I haven't watched Halo or attempted the third season of the Orville, or been to the theaters in as many months. So, I do appreciate your answer. And, more of a general observation, I also see nothing wrong with disliking a story because the story isn't engaging. What I honestly push back against is disliking a story because of some subjective standard of "disrespecting" the original. And, yes, I used quotes because I'm of the firm belief that unless one is out there slandering the original author, or burning the original work, then I'm hard pressed to be offended by a poor adaptation or find disrespect. Ok, I think that's enough ranting lol
There's an unlicensed but legal Bond book in Canada called Licence Expired. I've tried to get one repeatedly but it can't be exported.
It doesn’t come out as a rant. Don’t worry. I as well I have an eccentric peculiarity sometimes in that I like things to be ‘done’. That’s why I like Calvin and Hobbes, Lord of the Rings, Deep Space Nine, The Watchmen, any season of Fargo or whatever you want to throw a stick at. It’s why I watched Stranger Things season 1 and never went back to it. Sometimes I just have a feeling, based on my own personal nonsense, that a thing which is completed should be left alone. LotR is one of those things. I like the movies well enough, love the books. I don’t need any more of it, especially not when as in this case there’s a strong sense of the ersatz about it. I’m not saying things shouldn’t be made. Just that I won’t engage with them if I don’t think there’s sufficient reason for them to exist. In this case the reason is “Amazon wanted a sword and sorcery show” and that’s just not enough of a reason for me.
Fair enough. I'm of the opinion that if someone wants to make a story based on a book by all means go for it. I have a bit of an odd attitude towards it because if it doesn't engage me then I won't be rewarding it with my time or money. To me, you're doing the best thing by not engaging with it if it is not for you. And, honestly, that's it! No other rationale need be offered up. I'll respect that more than "It disrespects the original work!" Because I will always be at a loss of How.
@fireproof78 Absolutely agree that there’s nothing wrong with someone making their own story based on something else. I think this discussion has convinced me at least that if I can spend 40-50 minutes talking on here about it, then I have time to at least catch the first episode.
I quite liked it and I've never played the games. However, it contains an awful lot of coincidence-driven plotting and the Madrigal subplot lead nowhere interesting. The corrupt fascistic human UNSC and religiously zealous alien Covenant are equally unlikeable so it's just as well that the Spartans are shown to deserve sympathy. Catherine Halsey is also a compelling character although she's a psychopath. I'd watch season 2 and beyond but I'm not heavily invested in it.